Get package score

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the non-obvious side effect: triggering a crawl and waiting bounded if never scored. It doesn't cover timeout behavior, output shape, or idempotence, but the key behavioral trait is clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences: the first states the purpose, the second a necessary caveat about triggering a crawl. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the main purpose, side-effect, and bounded wait. Missing details are mostly output structure and explicit relationships to siblings, but the description is sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptive metadata (name, version, language). The description adds 'by name' and 'full score' but does not provide meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('full health/risk score for a single package by name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'single package' and the score result, versus list_packages (listing) and request_crawl (triggering crawls).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies when to use: when you need a score for one package, and warns that it may trigger a crawl if unscored. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like request_crawl for cases where you don't want to wait, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.